Wednesday, 15 February 2012

While Woodworth weaselled around about his Private Member's Motion to have a 'respectful' dialogue on when life begins, aka Opening the Abortion Debate That No One Wants Opened, he failed again to answer the basic question of 'Why?'

Brown didn't press very hard, but to be fair, his interest wasn't in the debate as such but in a political analysis of what trying to open it may mean.

The segment started with about five reiterations of Stevie Peevie using his patronizing-a-four-year-old voice on 'I've been very clear. . . yadayada . . . will not reopen' schtick. Then Woodward came on to say basically nothing.

Then a little introduction to Trost and his desire for martyrdom in the form of airing his own notions as opposed to the rigorously enforced Contempt Party talking-points.

Trost came on live to witter on about his own interest in reopening the debate. Brown prodded him about what his fellow caucus members think of his going off-message. More bafflegab about respecting everybody . . . (I had sorta stopped listening by then, to tell the truth.)

Then MacCharles came on to reassure us that Stevie Peevie really really really means it about not reopening the debate and everybody should just relax.

OK, then. I wasted half an hour of my life on that.

Regular readers know that we here at DJ! trust the Contempt Party about as far as we could throw Rob Ford. In fact, we're devoted to keeping vigilant guard on the Hidden Agenda Watch.

So are we reassured?

Nope.

We think a debate, however respectful, is a total waste of time, money, and patience. Remember, if this motion passes, what amounts to a Standing Committee on Abortion will be formed to listen to windbags like Charles McVety opine. Plus a whole host of the usual suspects like R.E.A.L. Women, Campaign Lie, etc.

And politicians don't become politicians unless they looove the sound of their own voices, so the pols will dive in enthusiastically and we'll have a Parliamentary circus like this, with the elected equivalents of Twatsy running their mouths.

We've asked before and we'll ask -- respectfully -- again: Why do we need this debate?

If Stephen Woodworth can provide one reason for it, one injustice that would be righted, one social problem that would be clarified, then fine, bring it on.